As we approach the end of the this documentation of McCandless's journey, has your overall view of Chris McCandless changed at all regarding this topic? Do you think that this is a sign of arrogance, ignorance, or just a human being challenging themselves? The chapter appears to be heavily defending Chris's mistakes in the wild, while still acknowledging them. Are Krakauer's methods effective for you in this case?
Regarding the fact that McCandless was seen as unprepared and unofficial, I still stand with my original view of Chris. Chris has been consistent with his actions and emotions towards other people on his journey. Ever since he embarked on his trek to Alaska, he has been very manipulative, as in he is always stopping at various places and accomplishing different things. This goes to show that Chris has never 'followed the rules'. Meaning that he goes by his free will, wherever that may take him or allow him to do. This argues against what the feedback Krakauer received from the magazine. The naysayer argued that Chris was not prepared for the wild, and did not have a map with him which they said was the number one rule about living in the woods. Krakauer backs up Chris by implementing scenarios where Chris 'goes with the flow'. By this Krakauer means that Chris has always done things his way. Chris wanted to experience the Alaskan terrain alone without anything to assisting him. He wanted to do things his way and experience life the fullest. In my opinion, I believe Chris was trying to fulfill his dream by living in the wild. For this occasion you don't need a map or supplies to help you. All you need is yourself and the correct mindset to lead you to what you have been striving to attain. If Chris wants to enjoy time alone in the wild by himself and only with himself, so be it. He is not considered arrogant just because he wants a challenge in life. Krakauer adds in many responses from people backing Chris up. I see this as a method to show that Krakauer believes in Chris and his mindset. Krakauer experiences the same lifestyle as Chris, and I believe he is trying to emphasize the fact living your life by your own rules and believing only what you believe in, is a priceless gift. People today follow rules, and contradict themselves making choices against what your supposed to do and what you want to do. You cant live your life by following others and what they think. Life is about doing things you want to do, not others. All in all, Krakauer's methods of backing up Chris in this case display a great effect on me.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I think that you wrote a very compelling argument. I fully agree with what you are saying. Chris was always a strange kid that flew by the seat of his pants. He never really planned anything out or made emotional connections to the people that he was involved with. I can not to relate to Chris' situation because I have always had dreams that I have wanted to fulfill. I could never leave life behind and give up my dreams to travel the country for no apparent reason. I would so that Chris was not driven or motivated to do anything. He has no goals in life, he didn't even want to go to college at first. Of course Chris was ignorant in not bringing a map with him. He had no plan of what he was going to do and got in way to over his head. I don't understand why he didn't familiarize himself where he was at in the forest. It ultimately cost him his live. You make a very good point that Krakauer had lived his life much like Chris did and that why he can defend him. Krakauer could have never written a book about how much he disagreed with Chris' actions or the book would not make any sense.
ReplyDelete